A number of medical procedures require ventilation be provided to the patient, which may be provided through an endotracheal tube. This tube may be inserted into the trachea. It should be noted that when the tube is inserted, the patient is asleep hyperoxygenated and then paralyzed for the procedure, and therefore not breathing. As the ventilator is not yet in operation, the physician must work quickly to insert the endotracheal tube.
With the advent of endoscopic equipment and small cameras, instrumentation can enable viewing of the cords and larynx on a video screen facilitating the intubation of the patient in a relatively quick and safe manner. In some instances it has been determined that direct visualization of the cords and larynx is preferred over the video method. However, video laryngoscopes due to their specialized construction, traditionally do not allowed for intubation by direct visualization. Rather, a physician must discard the video laryngoscope and obtain a traditional non-video laryngoscope to perform this procedure. This disadvantageously leads to delay in intubation of the patient due at least in part to the fact that the physician has to change instruments. It is highly desirable to reduce any cause for delay in the intubation process.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,655,377 (“the '377 patent”) and 6,543,447 (“the '447 patent”) disclose video laryngoscopes having a lifter portion that is long enough to extend into the laryngopharynx and operably engage the epiglottis of the patient. One function of the lifter portion is to hold the intubation tube with the video device is positioned on a lower side of the blade opposite to the lifter portion. While this configuration functions as a video laryngoscope, the lifter portion extends upward from the upper surface of the blade such that any direct visualization by a physician is virtually impossible. As such, a physician would have to discard and retrieve a separate laryngoscope to perform this procedure.
Another problem that traditional video laryngoscopes face is the limited interface ability they have with monitors. For example, a video laryngoscope typically is designed and can only be used with a single type of monitor, e.g. either an O.R. monitor or a P.C. This is disadvantageous as the physician may desire to switch monitors, for example, the laryngoscope may be attached to an O.R. monitor but the physician wants to connect the laryngoscope to a relatively small portable computer monitor as the patient is transported. The laryngoscope would then have to be replaced with a device capable of functioning with a P.C. monitor.
Yet another problem associated with video laryngoscopes is the fact that, many imaging chips are positioned in a cavity or enclosure at a distal end of the laryngoscope blade and are enclosed by a transparent window. However, the window often becomes fogged during the procedure thereby limiting the ability of the physician to see clearly.